Cycling to school: is it really such a terrible risk?

One of the dilemmas of modern parenting was thrown into sharp relief last week in the London suburb of Dulwich. The decision of Oliver and Gillian Schonrock to let their daughter, aged eight, and their five-year-old son cycle unaccompanied less than a mile to their school caused a furore after the headteacher threatened to report the couple to social services.

Mrs Schonrock said she believed the benefits far outweighed the potential risk from stranger danger, accidents and other factors. The head thought the children were being put at risk.

London mayor Boris Johnson described the couple as heroes and attacked "barmy" health and safety rules. "If Mr and Mrs Schonrock have carefully assessed the route, and considered the advantages and disadvantages, they should overwhelmingly be given the benefit of the doubt and the freedom to make up their own minds," he said. "They have taken the sword of common sense to the great bloated encephalopathic sacred cow of 'elf' and safety and are, of course, being persecuted by the authorities."

Messages over child safety and risk are mixed and confusing. Two years ago a survey by Cycling England criticised overprotective parents for stifling the chances for children to bike to school. A poll of more than 1,000 parents found that four out of five children were banned from cycling to school.

The report said that fear was creating "cul-de-sac kids", limited to cycling only in their own road and neighbouring streets. Environmentalists who despair at the school-run gas-guzzling 4x4s point out that the average journey to primary school is less than two miles and to secondary school less than three, so adults cannot say cycling to school is not feasible. Recent provisional Department for Transport figures show that cyclist deaths fell from 115 in 2008 to 104 in 2009, although, against the downward trend in road-user casualties, the number of cyclists seriously injured rose from 2,450 to 2,606.

Oliver Schonrock, 40, said: "These days children can do nothing unless it's planned. We are trying to let them enjoy their lives and teach them a little about the risks of life."

But the nature of risk facing today's children remains hotly debated, despite all the statistical evidence that British children are far more likely to be hurt in a family setting than outside the home.

Last Wednesday the Children's Society released a report claiming that parents' fears about young people's safety outside the home are exaggerated. More than 2,000 people were asked to identify the biggest risks for children aged between six and 15 in a number of situations. Three-quarters said they were exposed to a high level of risk when parents did not know their whereabouts in the evening. Letting a child play outdoors after 9pm in summer without knowing where they were was seen as dangerous, with 50% of respondents rating it as the highest possible level of risk.

"Children must be safeguarded, but this should also be balanced with the freedom to be themselves and to take some risks," said Bob Reitemeier, the society's chief executive. "It is a question of balance. Young people consistently tell us that they need to be able to develop friendships, have fun and to play without adult supervision."

For the Schonrocks, the biggest fear may be that parental involvement in finding that balance between fear, risk and letting go, could be reduced.